34TH ANNUAL APPLIED LINGUISTICS WINTER CONFERENCETARGETING TOMORROW:

TESOL, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGYNEW YORK STATE TESOL: APPLIED LINGUISTICS SIG

Lee B. Abraham, Columbia Universitylba2133@columbia.edu

Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY Saturday, March 2, 2013

Integrating Technologies in English Language Learning and Teaching through a Multiliteracies Framework

Workshop Agenda1. Introduction, guiding questions, and objectives

2. Survey the communication landscape (Web 2.0)

3. Define ‘Multiliteracies’

4. Examine a pedagogical framework for integrating technologies in language learning and teaching based on the term ‘Multiliteracies’New London Group (1996) / Learning by Design (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012)

5. Review TESOL Technology Standards (Healey et al. 2011) for Learners & Teachers

6. Present (briefly) activity templates (handout) based on the pedagogical framework (#4)

7. Analyze examples from online advertising

8. Questions and comments

2

Questions

1. In what ways are the new and emerging online technologies of the 21st century different from 20th

century online technologies? 2. What, if any, are the implications of these

differences for English language learning and teaching?

3. How can we systematically integrate new, emerging, and future technologies effectively in our curriculum?

3

Workshop Objectives4

1. Demonstrate that the analysis of computer-mediated discourse (CMD) in English available in online communication environments expands opportunities for English language learning and ultimately, participation in authentic online communities (Goal 3, Standard 5 of the TESOL Technology Standards, Healey et al. 2011) and for expressing their own voices in innovative and creative ways

2. Demonstrate how the pedagogical framework proposed by the New London Group (1996) and in the work of Kalantzis & Cope (2012):

a) Allows English language learners to consider how texts (i.e., discourses) are designedb) Provides language learners opportunities to consider the notion of variability in

language because communicating the same meaning or notion can often be expressed in different ways (i.e., from the many available designs in a given language or varieties of a language).

c) Encourages learners to redesign texts (i.e., discourses) as they communicate in a variety of settings and for a wide range of purposes.

d) Enables instructors to effectively integrate existing, emerging, and future technologies in their curricula

Interactive Communication Landscape5

New participation framework for written discourse for Web 2.0 technologies (O’Keeffe, 2012, p. 451)

For example, comments to authors on blogs, Facebook posts, Twitter, YouTube, etc. [retweets (RT), posts on someone else’s timeline, etc.)]Comments to each other (“audience”). Responses to these comments.

Multiliteracies6

“The term ‘Multiliteracies’ refers to two major aspects of meaning-making today. The first is social diversity … Texts vary enormously depending on social context – life experience, subject matter, disciplinary domain, area of employment, specialist knowledge, cultural setting or gender identity, to name just a few. The second aspect of meaning-making highlighted by the idea of Multiliteracies is multimodality” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, pp. 1-2).

7

Jacobs (2012), p. 99

Additional Factors

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Technology Standards for Language Learners

Goal 2: Language learners use technology in socially and culturally appropriate, legal, and ethical ways.

Standard 1: Language learners understand that communication conventions differ across cultures, communities, and contexts.

8

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Performance indicators:Language learners identify similarities and differences in local and global

communication.Language learners demonstrate understanding of multiple ways that computer-

mediated communication (CMC) can be (mis)interpreted (e.g., using appropriate register, turn-taking, respecting expected length and content of messages, considering literal versus rhetorical meaning.)Language learners show sensitivity to their use of communication conventions,

according to the context (e.g., not using all caps [capital letters], waiting for lag time in synchronous communication, using turn-taking cues, checking spelling).Language learners conform to current social conventions when using technology

in communication (e.g., social conventions in the classroom may restrict cell phone use).Language learners can identify cultural variables at play in interpreting and

responding to a message.

9

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Technology Standards for Language Learners

Goal 3: Language learners effectively use and critically evaluate technology-based tools as aids in the development of their language learning competence as part of formal instruction and for further learning.Standard 5: Language learners recognize the value of technology to support autonomy, lifelong learning, creativity, metacognition, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.

10

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Performance indicators:Language learners select the most appropriate available technology for

independent language learning and can provide reasons for their choices.Language learners demonstrate the ability to set language learning goals and

objectives that employ technology, with a teacher’s support or independently.Language learners can use technology to monitor their progress (e.g., record

keeping within programs, electronic portfolios), with a teacher’s support or independently.Language learners can express themselves using technology (e.g., creating

digital media as works of art).Language learners provide reasons for the value of technology in maintaining

communication for personal and professional purposes and having access to authentic material that supports their language learning.Language learners use technology to work in English more effectively (e.g.,

using an electronic dictionary when it is more efficient than using a paper dictionary).

11

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Technology Standards for Language Teachers

Goal 2: Language teachers integrate pedagogical knowledge and skills with technology to enhance language teaching and learning.

Standard 3: Language teachers design and manage language learning activities and tasks using technology appropriately to meet curricular goals and objectives.

12

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration(2011). Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware

Performance indicators:Language teachers demonstrate familiarity with a variety of technology-based

options.Language teachers choose a technology environment that is aligned with the

goals of the class.Language teachers choose technology that is aligned with needs and abilities

of the students (e.g., language learning–focused software, productivity tools, content tools).Language teachers demonstrate awareness of students’ level of digital

competence.Language teachers ensure that students understand how to use the technology

to meet instructional goals (e.g., teach students how to evaluate online resources).Language teachers enable students to think critically about their use of

technology in an age-appropriate manner.

13

Multiliteracies Framework (‘Learning by Design’)

Multiliteracies Framework for Teachers to Integrate

Technology New London Group (1996)

‘Learning by Design’(revised ‘Multiliteracies’ framework)

Cope & Kalantzis (2009) Kalantzis & Cope (2010; 2012)

1. Situated practice 1. Experiencing the known and the new

2. Overt instruction 2. Conceptualizing by naming and with theory

3. Critical framing 3. Analyzing functionally and critically

4. Transformed practice 4. Applying appropriately and creatively

14

Although the four components for designing tasks/activities are not intended to be implemented in a fixed order (linearly) or in specific proportions (New London Group, 1996, p. 85), the cycle from Situated Practice to Transformed Practice (including Overt Instruction and Critical Framing) offers a practical way for teachers to design task/activities based on these learning opportunities (see the description on the handout) initially as separate components even if they often overlap and are interrelated.

Food and Beverages

Online Advertising15

Sonic 1, Sonic 2, Sonic 3,“America’s Drive-in”16

KFC17

YouTube

McDonald’s18

McDonald’s Websites

@McDonaldsCorp Twitter Team

McDonald’s Social Media Around the World

Clothing/Apparel

Online Advertising19

Banana Republic20

Comments on Facebook and comments on the post on Oh Joy!The author replies to these comments on Oh Joy!Oh Joy (link)

Old Navy 121

Old Navy 2 (Style Council), Old Navy 3 (Official Twitter Account)

22

The first tweet by Old Navy on February 21 (“We’re recruiting”) shows how companies rely on more than one social media site (Crowdtap), which teachers could also use. The other tweets consist of comments from followers on Old Navy’s Official Twitter Account

Hollister 123

Hollister 224

Hollister 325

Urban Outfitters 126

Automobiles

Online Advertising27

Honda 1, Honda 2, Honda 3, Honda 428

Honda Australia Links: 1, 2, 329

Candy: Hershey’s, Mars (Twix), WonkaCereal: Post, Kellogg’sDairy: California Milk Board, Got milk?, Yoplait, Dannon, Chobani

30

Additional Online Advertisements

Conclusion

Thank you!Questions and comments!

Lee B. Abraham, Columbia UniversityEmail: lba2133@columbia.edu

31

34th Annual Applied Linguistics Winter Conference

Targeting Tomorrow: TESOL, Applied Linguistics, and Technology

New York State TESOL: Applied Linguistics Special Interest Group

Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Integrating Technologies in English Language Learning and Teaching through a Multiliteracies Framework

Lee B. Abraham | Columbia University | lba2133@columbia.edu

PowerPoint Presentation Available: https://sites.google.com/site/leebabraham/presentations

Workshop purpose: The “Multiliteracies” and the “Learning by Design” frameworks allow teachers to

systematically integrate authentic electronic English discourse on social media and other websites for language

learning as part of the TESOL Technology Standards’ goal “… to support autonomy, lifelong learning,

creativity, metacognition, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.” (Healey et al., 2011, p. 65).

Multiliteracies Framework for Teachers to

Integrate Technology New London Group (1996)

“Learning by Design”

(revised ‘Multiliteracies’ framework)

Cope & Kalantzis (2009); Kalantzis & Cope (2010; 2012)

1. Situated practice 1. Experiencing the known and the new

2. Overt instruction 2. Conceptualizing by naming and with theory

3. Critical framing 3. Analyzing functionally and critically

4. Transformed practice 4. Applying appropriately and creatively

Although the four components for designing tasks/activities are not intended to be implemented in a fixed order

(linearly) or in specific proportions (New London Group, 1996, p. 85), the cycle from Situated Practice to

Transformed Practice (including Overt Instruction and Critical Framing) offers a practical way for teachers to

design task/activities based on these learning opportunities (see the following descriptions) initially as separate

components even if they often overlap and are interrelated.

1. Experiencing the known: learners bring to the learning situation perspectives, objects, ideas, ways of

communicating and information that are familiar to them, and reflect on their own

experiences and interests

the new: learners are immersed in new situations or information, observing or taking part

in something that is new or unfamiliar

2. Conceptualising by naming: learners group things into categories, applying classifying

terms, and define these terms

with theory: learners make generalizations by connecting concepts and developing

theories

3. Analysing functionally: learners analyse logical connections, cause and effect, structure and function

critically: learners evaluate their own and other people’s perspectives, interests and

motives

4. Applying appropriately: learners try their knowledge out in real-world or simulated

situations to see whether it works in a predictable and conventional context

creatively: learners make an intervention in the world which is innovative and creative,

distinctively expressing their own voices or transferring their knowledge to a different

context.

[Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 357]

2

Selected Templates for Designing Activities for the Four Components of the Multiliteracies Framework1

SITUATED PRACTICE | EXPERIENCING THE KNOWN

Language learners (or teachers) bring in a multimodal website (this could also be a video or social media site

that has been previously approved by a teacher). They show it, talk about it, explain it, and discuss it with their

peers.

SITUATED PRACTICE | EXPERIENCING THE NEW

Describe a Social Media Site

Teachers provides a multimodal website (video, social media site, etc.) that is unfamiliar and appropriate to the

goals and objectives of the lesson.

1. Describe: What are the key features of the site? What stands out as its main points? What is the purpose of

the site (video, etc.)? For whom it is intended? Describe the individuals on the site, audio/sound,

images/photos, videos, and language.

2. Examine: Which visual elements (images, photos, videos, animations) and written elements are not so

obvious or confusing?

3. Infer: What do you think the designers of the website meant? How successful are the designers in

communicating these meanings? Explain.

Assign different roles to pairs or groups of three: describing, examining, inferring. Teachers/learners use the

equivalent of note taking for multimodal texts – circling parts of images, labeling and captioning, using an

overhead projector, a combination of a document camera and board, interactive board, displaying the website or

file (e.g. a PDF file), etc.

Text Annotation of a Social Media Site

Annotate the website (you might have to do this on separate sheet of paper) as you read/view and after you have

finished reading/viewing the site. You may have to read/view several times. You do not have to annotate every

element!

? Record a question mark (?) for any questions you have about what is happening or about the

grammar or vocabulary.

Underline

Underline aspects of the writing style. This could be a line or phrase that you think is

beautifully worded or makes you think. It could be something about the style or tone that

strikes you or that you like or dislike.

C Write C for your connections when a written text, photograph, animation, video, image

reminds you of something you have read or seen or done in your own life.

! Write an exclamation point (!) when something is interesting, important, unusual, and/or

surprises you.

Discuss your annotations with a classmate. What are the important or interesting observations or questions?

Share any other opinions, ideas, and predictions.

1 Many other commonly used activities can also be used for analyzing the discourse (verbal and visual, i.e. images, video,

photos) of social media as well as new and emerging technologies as part of the four elements of the

Multiliteracies/Learning by Design framework.

3

OVERT INSTRUCTION | CONCEPTUALIZING BY NAMING AND WITH THEORY

Information Retrieval Grid

This enables students to organize and record information. A grid is constructed with focus questions along one

column and items along the other two columns. Students read/view the site and complete the grid by recording

ticks or words in the boxes. When the grid is complete students discuss their findings using comparatives or

connectives.

Site 1 Site 2

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Graphic Organizers for Vocabulary

People or Things Related to

Word or Concept

Related Words My Drawing/Picture

Synonyms

Word

or

Concept

Antonyms

Sentences from the website

My Sentences

CRITICAL FRAMING | ANALYZING FUNCTIONALLY

Analyze the written elements of the site, including comments and responses/replies. When appropriate to the

level of the class, English language learners could analyze visual elements such as images, photographs,

animations, and videos, see for example) by identifying linguistic, visual, audio, spatial and gestural modes of

meaning. Once learners have identified these features they can practice using some of the features. For example,

if students identify the use of different tenses, they could practice writing sentences in different tenses.

Learners could also take sentences and rewrite them, replacing particular parts of speech and maintaining the

structure of the sentence. This can be used to teach noun groups (adjective, noun, adjectival phrases and

clauses) and adverbials (verb, adverb, adverbial phrases) and simple, compound and complex sentences,

nominalization, active and passive voice and tense as well as many other grammatical features (see Biber,

Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; among others).

CRITICAL FRAMING | ANALYZING CRITICALLY

How does the (social media) site position a user? How does the site emphasize the author/creator’s choices

(purpose)? How are issues of power, morality, ideology, propaganda, and rhetoric present/absent?

4

TRANSFORMED PRACTICE | APPLYING APPROPRIATELY

Using the conventions of each genre, learners create a website, presentation (e.g. PowerPoint, Prezi), make a

video, mobile phone app, photo/video journal, multimedia advertising campaign, among other projects.

TRANSFORMED PRACTICE | APPLYING CREATIVELY

Learners create a multimodal text which mixes modes of meaning (linguistic, visual, gestural, audio and

spatial), media, and genres in an original (hybrid) way (Lotherington & Jenson, 2011; Miller & McVee, 2012).

References

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written

English. New York: Longman.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4, 164-195.

Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011).

TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Jacobs, G. E. (2012). The proverbial rock and hard place: The realities and risks of teaching in a

world of multiliteracies, participatory culture, and mandates. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

56, 2, 98-102.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and

Digital Media, 7, 200-222.

Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. (2nd

ed.).

New York: Routledge.

Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies,

new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226-246.

Miller, S. M., & McVee, M. B. (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and teaching for the

digital world. New York: Routledge.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

O’Keeffe, A. (2012). Media and discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge

handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 441-454). London: Routledge.